J U D G M E N T (Per the Hon’ble Mr.Chief Justice S.B. Sinha) This writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 23-3-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 436 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s application for appointment of Abdul Gaffoor on compassionate ground was dismissed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Abdul Khader was an employee of the South Central Railway of Secunderabad Division. He expired on 5-1-1986 leaving behind his wife Safai Bee, two sons and two daughters: the children being minor. One Mahaboob Bee claimed herself to be the first wife, who in an application stated that she had no objection if the terminal benefits, as may be available, are extended to the second wife of late Abdul Khader and her children. A joint representation thereafter was made seeking job for the son of the second wife, who at the time of the death of his father was only 14 years old. The representation was rejected on 21-4-1988. Abdul Gaffoor thereafter having passed S.S.C., examination in the year 1990 started making representations for his appointment on compassionate grounds. Original Application before the learned Tribunal was filed in the year 2001. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in SANJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR(1) the learned Tribunal dismissed the application. 3. Mr. Sanyasi Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that having regard to the custom of the family there was no bar in marrying second time without obtaining any consent from the employer. In any event, contends the learned counsel, the very fact that compassionate appointment is to be made in terms of the circulars Issued by the Central Government, the entire facts and circumstances should be considered with compunction and pity. Socio economic justice, the learned counsel would contend, must be allowed to prevail over the technicalities and delay, if any. 4.It is now a well-settled principle of law that an appointment on compassionate ground is made by way of an exception to clause (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Policy decision or statutory rules embodying the, principles of appointment on compassionate ground would bring within its umbrage only such cases where by reason of a death of a bread-winner of the family, his heirs and legal representatives become destitute. Policy decision or statutory rules embodying the, principles of appointment on compassionate ground would bring within its umbrage only such cases where by reason of a death of a bread-winner of the family, his heirs and legal representatives become destitute. In other words, the scheme of compassionate appointment aims at tiding over the immediate difficulties of the family of the deceased. For the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, not only the applicant must fulfil the conditions therefor but also he must be qualified for holding the post. No offer of appointment can be given in favour of minor and no offer of appointment can also be given in favour of a person, who at the time of the death of his father, was not qualified to hold the post. As noticed hereinbefore, the death of Abdul Khader took place as far back as on 5-1-1986. The family has survived for more than 17 years. It is, therefore, not a case where the Court would extend the principles of socio-economic justice in implementation of the scheme which, as indicated hereinbefore, has been formulated by way of an exception to clause (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In HARYANA STATE ELECT-RICITY BOARD v. NARESH TANWAR (2), the Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA(3) wherein in no uncertain terms it was stated that certain exceptions are carved out in the interest of justice for making appointments in the public services on the basis of open invitation of applications on merit; one of which is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family penury and without any means of livelihood. It was observed: “In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased, who may be eligible for appointment. It was observed: “In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased, who may be eligible for appointment. The whole object of grant of compassionate appointment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises.” (Emphasis supplied) 6.The Apex Court, although, held that no such compassionate appointment can be granted after a long lapse of period, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the appellant-Board to consider the case of appointment of candidate either as temporary or permanent employee by giving full details of the family circumstances and economic conditions. The said decision in principle, as also by way of precedent, runs counter to the submission made by Mr. Sanyasi Rao. 7. In BALBIR KAUR v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA(4) the question which came up for consideration before the Apex Court, was entirely different. Therein the Apex Court was considering the case as to whether the requirement of compassionate appointment cannot be given a go-bye only because there exists a family benefit scheme in terms of tripartite agreement. It was observed: “Mr. Bhasme, learned Advocate appearing for the Steel Authority contended that the Family Benefit Scheme was introduced on 21st November, 1992 and the salient features of the Scheme were to the effect that the family being unable to obtain regular salary from the management, could avail of the scheme by depositing the lump sum provident fund and gratuity amount with the company in lieu of which the management would make monthly payment equivalent to the basic pay together with dearness allowance last drawn, which payment would continue till the normal date of superannuation of the employee in question. Mr. Bhasme further contended that adaptation of this Family Benefit Scheme was meant to provide an assured or regular income per month, while the bulk amount deposited by way of provident fund and gratuity with the management remained intact. Mr. Bhasme further contended that adaptation of this Family Benefit Scheme was meant to provide an assured or regular income per month, while the bulk amount deposited by way of provident fund and gratuity with the management remained intact. Mr, Bhasme, contended that consequently on deposits as above, with the management, the employee’s family could avail of pay up to normal date of superannuation on the footing that the employee though not actually working but notionally continued to work till the normal date of superannuation and such a scheme in fact stands at a much better footing and much more beneficial to an employee or a deceased employee. Apparently these considerations weighed with the High Court and the latter thus proceeded on the basis that by reason of adaptation of a Family Benefit Scheme by the Employees’ Union, question of any departure therefrom or any compassionate appointment does not and cannot arise. But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family - This is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.” 8. The question, which arises for consideration in this case, therefore did not arise in the aforementioned case. On the other hand, the Apex Court in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL (3 supra) clearly held that belated consideration of the case for appointment on compassionate ground should not be entertained, while considering the circular letters, policy decisions or statutory rules embodying the principles upon which compassionate appointment should be made. The Court, while considering the socio-economic justice, must also bear in mind the fact that the same being an exception to constitutional requirements, all conditions laid down therefor must be fulfilled. 9. The Court, while considering the socio-economic justice, must also bear in mind the fact that the same being an exception to constitutional requirements, all conditions laid down therefor must be fulfilled. 9. In SANJAY KUMAR (1 supra) the Apex Court held: “We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact, such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION v. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR ( AIR 1998 SC 2230 ). It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first, application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time, as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years unless there is some specific provision. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief.” 10.In K. RAJESWARI v. GOVT. OF A.P (5) a Division Bench of this Court as regards the scheme of compassionate appointment observed: “The purpose and object of a benevolent scheme like grant of appointment on compassionate ground is well known. The said scheme was evolved having regard to the economic distress, which may be faced, by the family of the deceased and such economic distress must satisfy the other test of immediacy and also must arise on account of the death of the sole bread winner. Appointment on compassionate ground is considered to be an exception to clause (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.” 11. Social justice, in our opinion, cannot be kept confined only to the case of the petitioner, who is before the Court, but also in larger public interest, having regard to the doctrine of equality, to all concerned. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --X—